You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by ShadowDuelist
I am so incredibly jealous of your shed
I PMed you my email, command me captain
I'm down to join in on this, but don't feel like you need to expand things to accommodate me
I recall thinking the movie was kinda blue, but I didn't realize just how bad it was. Holy shit.
If Regan can't do it, I'd be happy to step in. I also still want to face off against Teague eventually too.
I'm super down for some kind of round robin, if Owen wants to put in that kind of work. I'll also throw my hat into the ring for Star Wars Legacy EU. Most of the time I got odd looks when I ramble at length about Clat the Shamer, but perhaps I can use this knowledge to win something this time.
I'm also down for video game trivia, LotR trivia, Magic the Gathering trivia, and probably many other things I haven't thought of.
I'm down to face off against Boter. I'm a bit of an impostor though, because despite hanging out here forever, I'm not actually much of a movie guy. I was playing along with this quiz, and had like 1 point going into the final question. I got less podracers then I thought I would (only 7), but when I was really into LotR I memorized the whole hobbit party, so I dominated that question. More questions like that and I've got this in the bag.
Discord is great, and has become one of my primary ways of keeping in contact with people. It has basically everything I want out of social media without intruding with lots of stuff I don't. It's also probably the best way to get ahold of me without literally having my phone number. So, if y'all want to hang out on Discord, I'm already there.
Someone being turned back to the Light side by the power of love is such a Star Wars trope that Kylo's redemption didn't bother me, but some of my friends did question it. I feel like if we're going to say he didn't earn it, then we have to be honest with ourselves and go back and admit that Vader didn't really earn his redemption either. I'm with you on the kiss though.
I liked it, and I suspect it'll be my favorite of the sequels. There was definitely some stuff I didn't like (stupid dagger mcguffin) but it was generally separated by a bunch of stuff I did. It is basically the plot of Dark Empire adapted to their characters and cranked to 11 though.
I just want to echo what Boter said. Thanks for putting in all that work, I love that we have this. Hopefully, someday, we can play another campaign together.
Gotta maintain that air of mystery somehow.
As an American, I am so over our government. The current rhetoric of no compromise and fuck over the other team as much as possible is so deeply frustrating that I wish we could scrap the whole thing and start over.
I've been back and forth about whether I wanted to post this, cause I kinda feel like it's me standing here telling you how to make your game and I don't want to come across as condescending, but at the same time I want to be helpful, so here it is. If it's not helpful or stuff you already know, feel free to ignore me.
Player incentives are an important part of designing games and one of our main tools for directing player behavior. Well designed incentives lead to intuitive and fluid play, while poorly designed incentives can lead to feelings of frustration and confusion. As designers, we want our players to take the paths that lead to success naturally and at a pace that leads to a good game play experience, and we certainly don't want to have to force them along. Now, you might assume that players will automatically be incentivized to take actions that win the game, but in fact that is only true insofar as that they want to do the things they find fun and most people enjoy winning. But if they find something else to do that's more fun, they might not actually progress toward winning.
Let me talk a little about a game I played recently called Space Base. In this game you have a base with twelve hangers for ships, and these ships produce resources as you roll dice, allowing you to buy more ships that produce more resources, etc. This is super fun, and we were having a great time building up our production engines. Some of these ships also produce victory points, which progress you toward winning, but the main way to acquire victory points is to buy very expensive ships that give you a bunch of points at once, but shut down the hanger they go in. This is not real fun, as you spend a lot of your hard earned resources to make your base worse. Yes, it leads to winning, but we were having a good time building up our bases, so we didn't bother. Except for the one guy who had played the game before, he started buying these and just suddenly won, while the rest of us only had a few victory points. It wasn't intuitive for use to take the path to victory because not only was it not the most fun thing to be doing, but it felt like you were being punished for doing it. However, it's probably a good thing he was there to end the game, because it ended while we were still having fun, before it started to drag on and become tedious. We weren't upset that we got so absolutely defeated because we'd still been having fun the whole time. Making winning natural helps new players stay competitive with veterans and helps you control the pacing of the game so that people are still having fun at the end.
Which brings me to the Monopoly problem. Losing at Monopoly sucks. You're steadily ground out of the game by poor luck as you're forced to sell off your houses and mortgage your property, watching any hope of winning the game fade away until you wish you'd just go bankrupt already so you can stop playing. They no longer have any incentive to play the game, so they don't want to. This leads to all the house rules you see that add chances to get large sums of free money. They add incentive to keep playing because you might land on free parking, or roll snake eyes, or successfully rob the bank when no one is looking, and now you're back in it. But now no one ever looses and the game goes on too long and everyone gets bored and just stop playing.
So, we want people to want to win, but we also want people to want to keep playing even if they're not going to win, all the while keeping the gameplay at a good pace. This can be a tricky thing to balance, and the answer is going to be different for each game. I don't actually know how your games works, but just from what I've heard, I wanted to highlight these few things. If defenders have too many advantages over attackers (getting to choose negative effect, armor, chance of shots missing) it could lead to gameplay where the more fun thing to do is build defensive ships that shrug off your opponent's attacks. This could lead to poor pacing where players get bored before the game ends. It also sounds like players could end up taking crippling hits that leave them playing from a position they're unlikely to win from long before the game ends.
Now, I want to re-iterate, I don't want to tell you how to make your game, and I'm making a lot of assumptions as I don't actually know how your game works, so take everything I'm saying with a grain of salt. However, I always try to provide helpful criticism when asked, and this is a field I'm knowledgeable in, so I didn't want to leave you hanging either.
Ok, so there is definitely some weirdness going on here with player incentive and optimal play. The problem is that landing a second hit on a category of parts is objectively worse than only landing one hit, as we've spent more resources to not only for the same amount of damage, but have now given our opponent a chance to chose a better downside (Even a critical hit is worse than just hitting three different components, making it not feel very critical). This means we're punishing our players for shooting more guns at their opponent, even though shooting at the opponent is how you win. Maybe consider letting the attacker choose which damage card is kept so they get something out of multiple hits?
I love the narrations, they're so good, especially this one. They make me want to "rewatch" everything, except I still can't stand the sound of my own voice.
I've never been into the build-a-joke style games like Cards Against Humanity or Apples to Apples, the humor has just never really landed for me. I've enjoyed the Jackbox stuff, and usually it's quite fun, but sometimes I'm just not up to the task of being witty on the spot. Recently my go to party game has been Codenames, which is a fun little word game played in teams, and that's been a huge hit. I've also had success in the past with Concept, which is a non-verbal communication/guessing game like Pictionary or Charades, but with the upside that no one has to draw or act.
Boter, that might be the most Canadian thing I've ever seen. I'm reminded of a conversation I had with an Australian. The topic of his countries deadly wildlife came up, and his opinion was that North America's wildlife was way scarier. It came down to this: "Yeah, a funnel web can kill me, but I can also kill a funnel web. There's no chance in hell I'm ever winning a fight with a bear or a moose, and if I do get away they don't make an antivenom for 'mauled to death.'"
We can even have a good fight actor play fighting Spiderman; and have a good drama actor play drama Spiderman; and have a good comedy actor play comedy Spiderman; and have a good... CG performance... play alien-robot-spaceship-fight-battle Spiderman!
Did you just re-invent Power Rangers?
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by ShadowDuelist